ACLU of Kentucky

Supreme Court of the United States. These two consolidated suits are our first set of challenges to the posting of the Ten Commandments in county courthouses in Kentucky. The ACLU of Kentucky on behalf of its members in Pulaski and McCreary counties and residents of each of the two counties contended that the displays’ purpose and effect are to endorse religion, in violation of the First Amendment’s establishment clause.

After the suit was filed, the defendants enacted statements of “purpose,” claiming that the displays were meant to teach the historical lesson about Christians’ role in the nation’s founding. To further this “secular” purpose, the defendants surrounded the Ten Commandments with six unrelated statements about religion. U.S. District Judge Jennifer B. Coffman held that the modified displays likely were unconstitutional and issued preliminary injunctions prohibiting them. The defendants removed their displays, initially appealed the injunction and then, after obtaining new counsel, dropped their appeals.

Several months after removing the displays, the defendants posted new Ten Commandments displays. These displays of “historical documents” contained American (and earlier Colonial and British) political and patriotic documents and the Ten Commandments. Judge Coffman held that these displays too likely were unconstitutional, because the displays’ history showed that the defendants’ purposes were religious, not secular, and because the displays’ effect was to endorse religion. The judge therefore enjoined this third incarnation of the Ten Commandments displays and the defendants appealed that preliminary injunction.

In December 2003, a divided panel of the Sixth Circuit affirmed Judge Coffman’s preliminary injunction. Two of the three judges agreed that the displays’ content, context, and history showed that the defendants’ purposes likely were religious, not secular. But the court did not fully resolve whether the displays’ effect was to endorse religion. One judge agreed with Judge Coffman that the displays impermissibly endorsed religion, one disagreed and the third declined to reach the issue. The Sixth Circuit later denied review by the full twelve-member court. The defendants then asked the Supreme Court of the United States to accept review and the Court agreed to hear the case.

The case was argued before the Supreme Court on March 2, 2005. ACLU of Kentucky General Counsel David Friedman argued on behalf of the plaintiffs that the purpose and effect of the display was to endorse religion and hence the Ten Commandments displays are unconstitutional. On June 27, 2005, the United States Supreme Court issued its opinion affirming the Sixth Circuit, holding in a 5-4 decision that the clear purpose of the McCreary and Pulaski displays was to promote religion, and thus the displays violate the First Amendment.